History Under Threat
As mentioned in the Story of Point Cook, the RAAF Base was established in 1914 as the Central Flying School for the Australian Flying Corp and later became the site for the formation of the Royal Australian Air Force. It remains the oldest airfield in the Australian continent and home of the RAAF Museum. It is the site of many Australian "firsts" including the departure point for the first North-South, and non stop East-West crossings, as well as the first circumnavigation of the continent.
In the year 2000, it was planned for sale by the Federal Government and rumours circulated of bureaucrat's in the Defence Estate Organisation as viewing the sites runways and open space as possible redevelopment into housing estates.
It was thought of at the time that the historic buildings and RAAF Museum could be retained in Heritage parks, and that the RAAF Museum has no need to access to an operating airfield. The site was reportedly even managed for a time by the Australian Governments Asset Sales Department (i.e. not under the control of Minister of Defence).
Many argued that it was for Nation itself to ensure Point Cook was retained and developed to its full potential as a general aviation airfield, aviation museum and tourist attraction rather than be lost forever in urban sprawl.
In the year 2000, it was planned for sale by the Federal Government and rumours circulated of bureaucrat's in the Defence Estate Organisation as viewing the sites runways and open space as possible redevelopment into housing estates.
It was thought of at the time that the historic buildings and RAAF Museum could be retained in Heritage parks, and that the RAAF Museum has no need to access to an operating airfield. The site was reportedly even managed for a time by the Australian Governments Asset Sales Department (i.e. not under the control of Minister of Defence).
Many argued that it was for Nation itself to ensure Point Cook was retained and developed to its full potential as a general aviation airfield, aviation museum and tourist attraction rather than be lost forever in urban sprawl.
Ms Julia Gillard (former Prime Minister of Australia) on the 10 April 2000, said on the matter:
My grievance today relates to the future of the RAAF Williams Point Cook site in my electorate. This site is marked for disposal by the Commonwealth as part of the Defence Efficiency Review and the Defence Reform Program. Point Cook, as anybody familiar with aviation in Australia would know, is a truly historic site. It is the oldest airfield in the world that is still being operated as an airfield and it has many of its original features, including hangars and heritage listed buildings. It was established in 1913 as the Central Flying School, and the airstrip has been in continuous use ever since.
To get some perspective about what that means in terms of aviation history, we need to remember that the first-ever manned flight took place on 17 December 1903. So, a mere 10 years later, Point Cook was operating a flying school, and planes have been flying from there ever since. Apart from having history around that length of aviation service, it is of course the birthplace of the Australian Flying Corp and the Royal Australian Air Force. It was the departure point for the first north-south and the first east-west crossings of the continent by air and the first aerial circumnavigation of the continent. Recognising its historic nature, Point Cook is home to both the RAAF Museum and the RAAF Chapel.
One would hope that when a site of this significance is being dealt with by the Commonwealth, particularly when it has been identified as surplus to Commonwealth requirements, there would be a deep consultation strategy engaged in with the aviation community and with the local community as to the future use of the site. Unfortunately, that is not occurring. There has been a great deal of community debate and organisation around the question—not because the government has come and asked the community what its view is but because the community has determined that it will have its view heard, even if the government is not cocking its ear to listen to what the community has to say. The community recognises that the site has terrific potential as a tourist, education and aviation precinct, a place where you could go and learn about the history of flight and the history of our airforce, go and see the planes in the RAAF Museum and take a flight yourself or at least watch a functioning airstrip in operation. Some of these things are already there at Point Cook, and it is a question of whether or not the government acts in a way which facilitates these things to not only continue but develop over time.
The proposal to turn the site into a mixed education-aviation tourist precinct is well supported by the local community, and a petition which garnered more than 10,000 signatures has already been presented to this place about this matter. Indeed, the Minister for Defence has before him a credible proposal to develop the site as a tourist, education and aviation precinct, that is, a submission from a not-for-profit company called Point Cook Operations Ltd. To date, the minister has not responded to this proposal. The proposal requires the Commonwealth to grant a lease of the site to Point Cook Operations Ltd at a peppercorn rental. What loss of revenue this could cause the Commonwealth is a matter of speculation as the Point Cook site has not been valued. Factors relevant to the valuation would need to include the following. Even among those who do not accept that the aviation strip needs to be kept for historic reasons there is an acceptance that the museum and a tightly defined heritage precinct needs to be kept, irrespective of who ends up in eventual control of the site. That is obviously something that would affect the site's value. Also affecting the site's value is the fact that significant areas need remediation because they have been used in the past for weapons testing. Also, the site is not only not sewered in terms of having a sewerage grid on the site; it is not in any way connected to the main sewerage system in metropolitan Melbourne and there is considerable cost involved with such connection.
Then there is the question of upgrading the necessary infrastructure if the site were to be devoted to housing development. For example, Point Cook Road—the road that links the base with the major freeway, the Princes Freeway—is in no way capable of taking extra traffic and is under standard for the volume of traffic that it currently is required to cater for. In addition, there is the need to consider the effect of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance. There are wetlands in the vicinity of this site. The Commonwealth has international obligations in the use of our wetlands, and the pressure of development would need to be considered against those international obligations. And relevant to the debate is the question: how do you price the heritage value of maintaining the oldest functioning aviation strip in the world and the birthplace of the RAAF? How do you value having the RAAF Museum and the RAAF Chapel maintained in a setting which is compatible with their functions? Obviously there is a real debate about this question—a real debate about what the site should be used for, a real debate about the question of costs to the Commonwealth. It is a debate that has to be had, and it has to be managed in such a way that the aviation community, the local community and the stakeholders who currently use the Point Cook site are all consulted and embraced in that debate so we get the clearest possible picture of what should happen with the site.
As I have indicated, the consultation simply is not happening. But, almost worse than that, there has been a deliberate attempt by the Defence Estates Organisation—which is currently charged with managing the site with a view to its eventual disposal—a clear strategy emerging from that organisation to discourage those who currently use the site from continuing to use the site, obviously because the Defence Estates Organisation, notwithstanding the community debate about this issue, has as its eventual plan to sell as much of the site as possible for housing. The way in which this has come to my attention is that I have been approached by a number of aircraft owners and operators who were required by the Defence Estates Organisation to sign an `airfield use agreement'. They were required to sign that agreement by 29 February—this year being a leap year—and the threat held over their heads was that if they did not sign that agreement their aircraft would have to be removed from the Point Cook site the next day. When you look at the agreement its terms are indeed outrageous. I will raise three particular issues stemming from the agreement.
Firstly, there is the question of the charges being levied to land at Point Cook. The agreement is structured so that if you want to land your aircraft at Point Cook you must enter the agreement. That costs you $260, and then you pay $10 each day that your aircraft is present at Point Cook. So a single landing by a non-commercial, single-engine aircraft would cost a grand total of $270. This compares with a total cost—because they do not require these agreements with $260 fees in them—for landing at Moorabbin, for example, of $7. That is, it is almost 40 times more expensive to land at Point Cook than it is to land at Moorabbin. The comparison gets more and more ridiculous because you can land your non-commercial, single-engine aircraft at Tullamarine airport or Sydney airport, even in peak periods, for $250, and for $100 off-peak; that is, it is cheaper to land your single-engine aircraft at Australia's two major airports, Tullamarine [Melbourne] and Sydney, than it is to land at Point Cook. That is the effect of this agreement. They cannot be commercial rates. They are rates which, in my view, it cannot be denied have been struck with a view to discouraging aviators from using Point Cook, to clear the site in preparation for housing.
Secondly, these agreements provide that you need to give 48 hours notice if you want to land at Point Cook. We are talking about private aircraft operators, hobby operators, who literally look out the window on a Saturday morning and think to themselves it might be a nice day to go flying. If they want to land at Moorabbin, for example, or at Essendon or at Coolangatta or at Mangalore or any of those places, they merely are required to radio in whilst they are preparing to land to allow the aircraft controllers to make sure that there is not a problem with too many planes landing at once.
Thirdly, there is the question of risk management. Initially, the flying club that operates from there was told that each of its directors—this is a non-profit club—would have to sign an unconditional, continuing personal guarantee in order that their members could continue to fly out of Point Cook. Ultimately, that was resolved on the basis that instead of requiring those guarantees they would be asked for an additional $500 security deposit. What sort of rational, contracting structure can it be that asks for unconditional, continuing personal guarantees one day and settles for an extra $500 security deposit the next?
What the Minister for Defence needs to do in respect of the Point Cook site is put on hold any future conduct of the Defence Estates Organisation which would prejudice the interests of any of the current users of the Point Cook site and engage in a public consultation strategy about the site's future.
It is worth noting, that as far back as nearly two decades ago, the issues of roads and public transport were identified. And many would argue ignored.
And despite the validity of the comments raised in the Australian parliament, Government is considering wide stretching development that could lead to significant impacts on the operation of the Airfield.
My grievance today relates to the future of the RAAF Williams Point Cook site in my electorate. This site is marked for disposal by the Commonwealth as part of the Defence Efficiency Review and the Defence Reform Program. Point Cook, as anybody familiar with aviation in Australia would know, is a truly historic site. It is the oldest airfield in the world that is still being operated as an airfield and it has many of its original features, including hangars and heritage listed buildings. It was established in 1913 as the Central Flying School, and the airstrip has been in continuous use ever since.
To get some perspective about what that means in terms of aviation history, we need to remember that the first-ever manned flight took place on 17 December 1903. So, a mere 10 years later, Point Cook was operating a flying school, and planes have been flying from there ever since. Apart from having history around that length of aviation service, it is of course the birthplace of the Australian Flying Corp and the Royal Australian Air Force. It was the departure point for the first north-south and the first east-west crossings of the continent by air and the first aerial circumnavigation of the continent. Recognising its historic nature, Point Cook is home to both the RAAF Museum and the RAAF Chapel.
One would hope that when a site of this significance is being dealt with by the Commonwealth, particularly when it has been identified as surplus to Commonwealth requirements, there would be a deep consultation strategy engaged in with the aviation community and with the local community as to the future use of the site. Unfortunately, that is not occurring. There has been a great deal of community debate and organisation around the question—not because the government has come and asked the community what its view is but because the community has determined that it will have its view heard, even if the government is not cocking its ear to listen to what the community has to say. The community recognises that the site has terrific potential as a tourist, education and aviation precinct, a place where you could go and learn about the history of flight and the history of our airforce, go and see the planes in the RAAF Museum and take a flight yourself or at least watch a functioning airstrip in operation. Some of these things are already there at Point Cook, and it is a question of whether or not the government acts in a way which facilitates these things to not only continue but develop over time.
The proposal to turn the site into a mixed education-aviation tourist precinct is well supported by the local community, and a petition which garnered more than 10,000 signatures has already been presented to this place about this matter. Indeed, the Minister for Defence has before him a credible proposal to develop the site as a tourist, education and aviation precinct, that is, a submission from a not-for-profit company called Point Cook Operations Ltd. To date, the minister has not responded to this proposal. The proposal requires the Commonwealth to grant a lease of the site to Point Cook Operations Ltd at a peppercorn rental. What loss of revenue this could cause the Commonwealth is a matter of speculation as the Point Cook site has not been valued. Factors relevant to the valuation would need to include the following. Even among those who do not accept that the aviation strip needs to be kept for historic reasons there is an acceptance that the museum and a tightly defined heritage precinct needs to be kept, irrespective of who ends up in eventual control of the site. That is obviously something that would affect the site's value. Also affecting the site's value is the fact that significant areas need remediation because they have been used in the past for weapons testing. Also, the site is not only not sewered in terms of having a sewerage grid on the site; it is not in any way connected to the main sewerage system in metropolitan Melbourne and there is considerable cost involved with such connection.
Then there is the question of upgrading the necessary infrastructure if the site were to be devoted to housing development. For example, Point Cook Road—the road that links the base with the major freeway, the Princes Freeway—is in no way capable of taking extra traffic and is under standard for the volume of traffic that it currently is required to cater for. In addition, there is the need to consider the effect of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance. There are wetlands in the vicinity of this site. The Commonwealth has international obligations in the use of our wetlands, and the pressure of development would need to be considered against those international obligations. And relevant to the debate is the question: how do you price the heritage value of maintaining the oldest functioning aviation strip in the world and the birthplace of the RAAF? How do you value having the RAAF Museum and the RAAF Chapel maintained in a setting which is compatible with their functions? Obviously there is a real debate about this question—a real debate about what the site should be used for, a real debate about the question of costs to the Commonwealth. It is a debate that has to be had, and it has to be managed in such a way that the aviation community, the local community and the stakeholders who currently use the Point Cook site are all consulted and embraced in that debate so we get the clearest possible picture of what should happen with the site.
As I have indicated, the consultation simply is not happening. But, almost worse than that, there has been a deliberate attempt by the Defence Estates Organisation—which is currently charged with managing the site with a view to its eventual disposal—a clear strategy emerging from that organisation to discourage those who currently use the site from continuing to use the site, obviously because the Defence Estates Organisation, notwithstanding the community debate about this issue, has as its eventual plan to sell as much of the site as possible for housing. The way in which this has come to my attention is that I have been approached by a number of aircraft owners and operators who were required by the Defence Estates Organisation to sign an `airfield use agreement'. They were required to sign that agreement by 29 February—this year being a leap year—and the threat held over their heads was that if they did not sign that agreement their aircraft would have to be removed from the Point Cook site the next day. When you look at the agreement its terms are indeed outrageous. I will raise three particular issues stemming from the agreement.
Firstly, there is the question of the charges being levied to land at Point Cook. The agreement is structured so that if you want to land your aircraft at Point Cook you must enter the agreement. That costs you $260, and then you pay $10 each day that your aircraft is present at Point Cook. So a single landing by a non-commercial, single-engine aircraft would cost a grand total of $270. This compares with a total cost—because they do not require these agreements with $260 fees in them—for landing at Moorabbin, for example, of $7. That is, it is almost 40 times more expensive to land at Point Cook than it is to land at Moorabbin. The comparison gets more and more ridiculous because you can land your non-commercial, single-engine aircraft at Tullamarine airport or Sydney airport, even in peak periods, for $250, and for $100 off-peak; that is, it is cheaper to land your single-engine aircraft at Australia's two major airports, Tullamarine [Melbourne] and Sydney, than it is to land at Point Cook. That is the effect of this agreement. They cannot be commercial rates. They are rates which, in my view, it cannot be denied have been struck with a view to discouraging aviators from using Point Cook, to clear the site in preparation for housing.
Secondly, these agreements provide that you need to give 48 hours notice if you want to land at Point Cook. We are talking about private aircraft operators, hobby operators, who literally look out the window on a Saturday morning and think to themselves it might be a nice day to go flying. If they want to land at Moorabbin, for example, or at Essendon or at Coolangatta or at Mangalore or any of those places, they merely are required to radio in whilst they are preparing to land to allow the aircraft controllers to make sure that there is not a problem with too many planes landing at once.
Thirdly, there is the question of risk management. Initially, the flying club that operates from there was told that each of its directors—this is a non-profit club—would have to sign an unconditional, continuing personal guarantee in order that their members could continue to fly out of Point Cook. Ultimately, that was resolved on the basis that instead of requiring those guarantees they would be asked for an additional $500 security deposit. What sort of rational, contracting structure can it be that asks for unconditional, continuing personal guarantees one day and settles for an extra $500 security deposit the next?
What the Minister for Defence needs to do in respect of the Point Cook site is put on hold any future conduct of the Defence Estates Organisation which would prejudice the interests of any of the current users of the Point Cook site and engage in a public consultation strategy about the site's future.
It is worth noting, that as far back as nearly two decades ago, the issues of roads and public transport were identified. And many would argue ignored.
And despite the validity of the comments raised in the Australian parliament, Government is considering wide stretching development that could lead to significant impacts on the operation of the Airfield.